Business, capital and property

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Companies are the backbone of Sweden's economy. Companies that grow and develop create more jobs and thus higher tax revenues. A robust, predictable and fair tax system is naturally also an important part and important prerequisites for developing our companies in Sweden.

Since many Swedish companies operate in an international market, Swedish taxes must also be competitive so that Swedish companies are not disadvantaged in the global competition. It is therefore welcome that we now have a government and a Tidö Agreement that establishes that both corporate taxes and capital taxes shall be competitive from an international perspective and thereby promote entrepreneurship in Sweden.

The size of the corporate tax has great significance for growth and investments throughout the country. A tax reduction from 22 percent to 20.6 percent has been implemented, among other things on a moderate initiative. There may be reasons to review the level of the corporate tax in the future to find an even more competitive level from an international perspective – this not least so that we can accelerate investments for the existing companies in Sweden but also so that we will be attractive for new investments.

Companies, capital and property

Our small and medium-sized enterprises are important for securing long-term growth and development in Sweden. Over the years, we have succeeded in an outstanding way in producing skilled entrepreneurs and thus viable companies with several thousand employees. It is in small and medium-sized enterprises that the majority of the new jobs are created, and if we can get more companies to move from small to large, it is a way to increase the number of jobs and re-establish the work line.

Madam Speaker! We must now again focus on increasing Sweden's growth, because over the last ten years we have fallen behind the rest of Europe and the world. Sweden has, in practice, had zero growth over the last five years. This year, the forecast is even negative. We must change this.

The so-called entrepreneur tax is an important ingredient in this context to accelerate development and growth throughout Sweden. An attractive entrepreneur tax shall strengthen and accelerate entrepreneurship, jobs, and Sweden's competitiveness. The green transition is also benefited by an attractive taxation of these companies.

To emphasize the importance of this, the government gave the Committee on Simplified Taxation of Owners of Small Companies a number of important additional directives for its investigation in January 2023. The investigation received an additional mandate to analyze in what way the 3:12 rules, including the outsider rule and the provision on same or similar activities, can be changed so that the conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises shall be improved, particularly regarding their ability to grow, hire, and attract capital. Furthermore, the investigation shall analyze in what way the 3:12 rules can be simplified so that ownership transfers both to relatives and to staff shall be facilitated, and otherwise submit proposals for changes to the 3:12 rules that the committee considers appropriate.

Madam Speaker! Tax issues are, as I have described it, many times important for a company's development and growth. Of course, the tax situation or the tax system is not the only thing that determines whether Sweden could increase its growth. Other areas that have a significant impact are skills supply, education and research at our universities, and research and development within the companies, which has now become more favorable through the R&D deduction that has just been expanded. In addition to this, high efficiency is needed in permit processes and administrative systems managed by the state and municipalities.

Madam Speaker! Capital procurement is a fundamental part of all entrepreneurship. Without capital, there are no companies, and without companies, there are no jobs. In this perspective, capital taxation must not hinder the possibility for companies to find capital for investments and expansion. Banks, the stock market, and private capital are important when it comes to getting companies to grow, hire, and develop. We must therefore not have taxes that counteract or are not competitive from an international perspective.

The Riksdag decided in 2021 to introduce the so-called bank tax, which was given the name risk tax for credit institutions. I did not intend to start a debate about the risk tax here, but I still want to state that it should be abolished in the long run. In connection with the processing of the report 2021, an announcement was made that Kommuninvest should be exempted from this taxation because the purpose and objectives do not hit Kommuninvest and its operations. That question is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.

Madam Speaker! The investment savings account (ISK) has been a success since it was introduced in 2012 and has ensured that we have simplified saving in shares and funds for many small savers in Sweden. We believe it is reasonable that everyone who saves in an investment savings account should also have the opportunity to participate in new issues and initial public offerings regardless of which institution handles the ISK account. We therefore view the proposal to make a clarification in the legislation positively.

Madam Speaker! Swedish tax policy regarding companies and capital shall, in addition to securing good and stable tax revenues, also create conditions for increased growth and more jobs, as well as contribute to the green transition and a sustainable society. Tax policy shall be perceived as legitimate and fair, with openness and transparency as important guiding principles.

Madam Speaker! I hereby move to approve the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! I do not actually want to start a debate on the risk tax either, but I had intended to ask about it. I pressed for the floor before the Member had had a chance to comment on it in his speech.

We are familiar with the history surrounding the risk tax. There was a great deal of criticism of the bill when it was decided here in the chamber. Therefore, there were three announcements, including that Kommuninvest would be exempted, for many different reasons. The bill received a lot of criticism from our expert institutes regarding unfavorable competition in relation to foreign banks and so on, which could lead to businesses moving abroad.

The Moderates were perhaps the only ones who had a motion for the rejection of the bill. Many others had specific statements but abstained from voting and taking a position as the Riksdag made these announcements.

Now this decision exists, and the question lies in the government's lap. The Moderates control the Ministry of Finance. What the Moderate forgot to mention was that the announcement actually stated that by October at the latest, they would come back with a proposal for an amendment or rather, secure Kommuninvest. By then, this should have already been underway today.

I just wanted to ask if the member can say anything more about how this has been handled. You are behind in time. Does the government have plans to scrap the bank tax, or what is the intention?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

When it comes to the risk tax and many other taxes, the members know very well that the Moderaterna have a line that means we want to lower several of them, and we even want to remove some taxes. But in the economic situation we find ourselves in, with high inflation and high interest rates, it is not the perfect time to lower certain taxes right now.

The issue of the risk tax is still being prepared at the Ministry. We already had views on the entire bank tax when it was introduced, and we had specific views on involving Kommuninvest in all of this. The risk tax misses its purpose when it hits Kommuninvest, because that is not where the risk in the sector arises. It only risks imposing a lot of extra fees in municipalities and regions.

Our ambition is to return as soon as possible with a proposal regarding this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! This is incredibly important. I naturally share the criticism. We had a content-rich specific statement regarding the disadvantages of this, or rather, regarding the design of the proposal.

It affects Kommuninvest. It affects member-owned banks such as local savings banks or Länsförsäkringar Bank. This with Kommuninvest is very serious, because a large proportion of our small and medium-sized municipalities have no other financing. They borrow from Kommuninvest to finance investments in welfare. It will therefore become more expensive. It is a very unfortunate situation.

But now we are where we are. The government has to handle this regardless of whether one wants to or not. That is why I wanted to ask the question. I hear the member say that the government intends to return as soon as possible with proposals. I hope that it actually happens, because as was said, it is long after the time specified by the Riksdag.

I am, however, a bit unsure. When we in the Committee on Taxation handled the letter regarding how the government handles all announcements, I am not entirely sure that the Committee on Taxation said: It is urgent - hurry up!

It is the responsibility of the Moderaterna as a governing party to fulfill the announcement.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I can assure Helena Vilhelmsson that we will work on the issue.

I have personally had a great deal of commitment to the issue. I have written several debate articles on this and how it is misleading to introduce the tax at all, but that it hit particularly hard when it hit Kommuninvest. I share that view and am also concerned as there are many municipalities - and even some regions - that are more or less dependent on the financing possibilities from Kommuninvest. I will therefore monitor the issue moving forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are therefore debating the Committee on Taxation's report 12, which, as we have already heard, concerns tax issues regarding companies, capital, and real estate.

In the report, many motions are treated and thus a large number of proposals and questions. In that way, one could debate the report all day, but of course, we are not going to do that.

We Social Democrats stand behind all our motions in the report, but for the sake of time, we move for approval only of reservations 5 and 16.

I would first like to say something more general about taxes, both corporate taxes and capital taxes, in order to then touch upon some of the proposals in more detail. Let me start with the general regarding taxes!

Compared to many other countries, Sweden has a high tax level. Measured as, for example, the tax ratio, that is, total tax revenues in relation to GDP, Sweden has a higher tax level than many countries - even though the tax ratio today is lower than it was a couple of decades ago.

With that said, it is sometimes problematic to talk about taxes in a vacuum because taxes rarely have an intrinsic value. Taxes should be efficient, meaning they should achieve their purpose in the best way possible, and they should be uniform, neutral, and consistent. Taxes should never be higher or more extensive than what is needed for their purpose. All other things being equal, we of course want to pay taxes as low as possible. The problem is only, Madam Speaker, that "all other things being equal" does not exist. You cannot both have the cake and eat it. Therefore, taxes cannot be debated in a vacuum – they do, after all, finance what we hold dear in Sweden.

We Social Democrats have always pursued a policy so that all Swedes, regardless of background, occupation, and income, should be able to choose their own path in life. In this way, we are a freedom-promoting party. Our first congress elected the party leader and first Prime Minister, Hjalmar Branting, expressed it as that everyone must be given the opportunity to realize the longing of their best aspirations.

An equal and egalitarian society has been a prerequisite for this goal, and a policy for full employment has been a means - perhaps the most important instrument - to bring us closer to just free and equal individuals in a free and equal society. This policy for full employment has, together with the construction of the universal welfare state, been, and continues to be, one of the fundamental pillars of the Swedish folkhem model.

This policy also has very strong support in large parts of the Swedish population. The People's Home and the welfare state would have been impossible without taxes. The People's Home and the welfare state would actually have been impossible without tax levels that exceed those in other countries in Europe. It is because we have different ambitions for the state.

We Social Democrats see all the advantages of the strong Swedish model, where the tax system plays a central role in promoting equality by helping to redistribute wealth and finance public services such as safety nets, education, and healthcare - which is important to give all citizens equal opportunities. Therefore, as we have said, we cannot discuss taxes in a vacuum.

This report is partly about the taxes on companies in Sweden, which we heard in a previous speech. If one looks at international surveys, one sees that the starting point is that companies in Sweden have very good conditions and framework conditions in relation to the rest of the world. Sweden has for years subscribed to top-ten placements in various rankings regarding competitiveness, for example, the OECD's index.

This type of index measures things such as infrastructure, health and education, higher education and innovative power. Those who believe that Sweden's competitiveness is solely about and determined by a single tax rate here - or, as we heard in a previous speech, several tax rates both here and there - are therefore mistaken. Here we are back to the fact that it is what the taxes finance that is so incredibly important for Sweden, and in this case, it is also important for Swedish competitiveness.

Sweden has historically shown - and with a future new government we will also show - that Sweden is a knowledge-intensive nation that is at the forefront when it comes to innovation, digitalization and green innovation. If we are to continue to be at the forefront, we need a proactive policy, and that is where the parties differ. A proactive policy for green innovation is not achieved through lowered taxes but rather by making our society stronger.

In this report, we Social Democrats have no proposals for changes to taxes on entrepreneurship, but overall we have a progressive policy for a good business climate in Sweden. What we want in this area is that the 3:12 rules should continue to be investigated so that they are balanced. The purpose of the tax rules for small companies is that we should have neutral tax rules, that is, neutral between being an employee and being an entrepreneur, and in that respect we regret the government's additional directives linked to the ongoing investigation. As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, we move for approval of reservation 5.

Madam Speaker! If I am permitted, I would like to make a small elaboration regarding what is sometimes called in research as the deep determinants of growth, that is to say, what in the long run – over time – leads to growth. The research is not always unambiguous, but there are some factors that one always tends to point out. These are things such as education, infrastructure, trust, and low corruption. Statistically, we know that, for example, both trust and low corruption are usually linked to more equal societies.

Why do I then mention this in a debate on corporate taxes? Well, just as certain taxes can be growth-inhibiting, lowered taxes can also be growth-inhibiting if they strike at factors that lead to growth.

Right now, we have a government that obviously does not see how ordinary people are doing and which also prioritizes down things such as education and infrastructure. One actively chooses to reduce trust in society by completely ignoring what was promised in the election. One also takes steps in an authoritarian direction, with Orbán as a role model, which in the long run will probably lead to corruption. One example is the stopped transparency in the electricity support, and there are many other examples. These steps add up to a direction that is also wrong if one wants to create a better business climate.

We Social Democrats see the natural connections I mention, i.e., what leads to long-term growth, but it does not seem that the government is doing so. As a cherry on top of this business-hostile stance, one also risks eroding support for free trade in our country. Free trade is, after all, the most central thing for a small, export-dependent country like Sweden. Before the crisis, the export industry employed 1.4 million Swedes, and almost half of our GDP comes from exports. Therefore, we must safeguard free trade in all contexts.

It works in the same way here: We know from history that support for free trade is reduced if one undermines the safety nets and the education systems. By threatening security, the government in this way succeeds in also threatening support for free trade, which in the long run will be extremely harmful for the Swedish business climate.

Here we have a significant battle in Swedish politics. The question is whether we should safeguard trade, which is considerably more important than individual or many tax cuts, for example corporate tax, 3:12 rules and bank tax, which we heard in previous posts. Sometimes one wonders if there will be any taxes left after a bourgeois government has ruled.

I mean that it is important, real, and necessary to conduct a policy that holds the country together if, in the long run, we want support for free trade, the EU's internal market, and growth. If we want to create full employment, it is that type of policy that is needed. Instead, Madam Speaker, we have a government that does not see these connections. It makes me worried.

Today's government pursues a policy where they lower taxes for the richest - for the other matter, not for the companies; there isn't a single proposal for cuts for the companies, even though they talk about it. Instead, they want to lower taxes for the richest individuals. At the same time, they are eroding that which has created the good Swedish business climate, and then the question is how the Swedish business climate will look in a number of years.

I see that time is running out, so I will just say a few very short words about taxes on capital. Then we need to zoom out a bit, because inequality is increasing in the world and has been doing so for decades. A busload of the world's richest people own as much as half of the earth's population combined. The same applies to our own country: five people own more than five million Swedes.

Right now, three out of ten single parents with a salary under 35,000 kronor a month report that they cannot put nutritious food on the table for their children. I think it needs to sink in: Three out of ten single parents cannot put nutritious food on the table for their children!

Then it is obvious that Sweden needs a different policy, a policy that reduces the gaps. To achieve that, we do not need lower taxes, but perhaps in some respects actually higher taxes to do something about the growing gaps and the increasing inequality. But instead, we have a government that with surgical precision has lowered the taxes for the richest, shut down investigations that could have made Sweden more just, and is now referring further tax cuts for the absolutely richest.

Those who have the most also need to contribute the most here, and that is why we Social Democrats want to investigate a readiness tax. It was something we also talked about in the election and which could finance the increasing needs in defense and at the same time free up resources for, for example, those who have it the toughest. With a readiness tax paid by those who have the most in Sweden, Sweden becomes a little fairer. It is a pity that the Swedish right does not see that.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we Social Democrats are always ready to participate in discussions about a large and broad tax reform. It would be good for Sweden. Such a reform must, of course, have as its starting point that Sweden shall also in the future be a successful, progressive, and just country. This stands in stark contrast to the policy pursued by the government, which is currently lowering taxes for the richest with increased inequality as a result.

Unfortunately, it leads to increased injustice and actually also a worse business climate, and that is bad. It is bad for Sweden, it is bad for Europe and it is actually bad for the world, because Sweden has historically been an example in these issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Tegnér for an interesting contribution!

I would like to comment on a few things. In my speech, I tried to link the connection between capital, companies, and jobs. It is something that research has nevertheless proven – unlike research that would have proven that increased taxes lead to higher growth – it is nevertheless that good capital procurement leads to successful companies, which leads to more jobs, which in turn leads to high employment.

It is not the case that increased taxes lead to increased growth, and we have seen quite clear evidence of that during the last two parliamentary terms. During the last term alone, the then government proposed an increase of 46 different taxes, something that was also implemented.

I believe that in my speech I said that the growth in recent years has not been particularly good. During the years of government 2006-2014, however, there was good momentum in growth in Sweden, because then we lowered the tax on labor and changed the tax on capital and also the corporate tax.

I believe there is a very important answer regarding this, namely that we must remember that if we are to have an internationally competitive business climate in Sweden, our taxes cannot stand out. Lower taxes for entrepreneurship are incredibly important.

In my speech, I also pointed out that there are other ingredients that are important, for example competence supply, education, and so on.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ahlstedt, for the question of how it is that lower taxes do not lead to high growth.

We can start by sticking to the research. There, one is clear when it comes to the deep determinants of growth: It is about education, infrastructure and trust, which over time are shown to lead to growth.

The problem is that when one pursues a policy that makes the world more and more unjust, trust in society and for trade is undermined. This is seen by large international organizations such as the OECD, IMF, and the World Bank. They sometimes sound like redder socialists than I do, precisely because they see these connections.

If we are to look at the deep determinants of growth, we cannot look at individual years. We also know that from research. One cannot look at growth per capita over a very short period, especially not when Sweden has also had a change in the population structure during recent years. It is not a reasonable way to try to understand how one creates growth.

I would like to send the question back to Member Ahlstedt. When research so clearly shows that it is other variables than the tax levels that lead to growth, how is it then that the Moderaterna do not see what the IMF, OECD, and the World Bank see, namely that if society and the world do not hold together, both our free trade system and the growth will collapse, and then we will no longer have an open and free world?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! The OECD has on several occasions pointed out that Sweden should not have excessively high taxes on labor. The OECD has also pointed out that it was very good when Sweden abolished the gift tax, the wealth tax, and the inheritance tax, as it created better capital procurement for Sweden as a country.

The Social Democrats have tried three different attempts outside the textbook. They subjected Sweden to a tax shock in the 70s. It ended in total catastrophe. Then they subjected Sweden to a new tax shock in the 90s. That didn't go so great either. And even during the last eight years, they have tried to subject Sweden to a tax shock. I wouldn't say it was on par with the previous government periods, but it was still 46 taxes and a number of billions. That didn't go so well either.

There are many other important factors than taxes, which I was very careful to point out in my speech. Especially education level and access to higher education are important growth factors, but there are also other parts such as housing, social security systems and so on.

But fundamentally, it is that good capital procurement gives viable companies, and viable companies give new jobs. It is this connection that one must constantly keep in mind, so that one does not tax away the capital, tax away the companies, or tax away the employees, because then you get a mishmash in the system. That is why we need lower taxes for the companies in the long run. We need it already today, but it is not possible to implement given how the economic situation looks.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! First, three times historical revisionism: First and foremost, it was bourgeois governments both during the 70s and during the 90s that acted in an unreasonable manner, which caused the crises that hit Sweden and the world to hit our country harder than they otherwise would have.

The Chairman mentioned the inheritance and gift taxes, which were removed by a previous Social Democratic government because these taxes did not function as intended. I will then return to what I said earlier, namely that we Social Democrats will never stand behind taxes that do not work. On the other hand, we will always develop our policy, because we also know that we need a society that holds together.

It is the same thing when it comes to capital. Naturally, capital that can be invested was needed. We social democrats see that too. Sometimes when one hears the Moderaterna, it sounds as if Sweden has taxes that stand out completely in relation to the rest of Europe. But in many respects, we have very competitive taxes, which has also ensured that there is good access to capital in Sweden. For example, the Stockholm region is the place in the world after Silicon Valley that has the most unicorns, precisely due to such a well-functioning access to venture capital plus a number of other factors. It is clear that we see that too.

What worries me is that the Moderaterna do not see the whole picture - that they do not see that if there is no policy for the society to hold together, the society falls apart. Then people lose trust, then corruption increases, and then the trade systems collapse. That is what has happened in the Midwest in the USA, and that was what happened in Belgium when they voted against Ceta. If you do not truly have an idea of holding the society together, you will eventually also break the growth and end up with a terrible industrial policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the speech. It is always interesting to listen to analytical and principled reasoning. More of that is needed in politics.

I may not devote myself to that but instead delve into something that might be a detail, but oh so fundamentally important, namely the question of deductions for sponsorship. Last year, we made a decision here in the chamber regarding a proposal for an announcement that the government should review the issue of deductions for sponsorship to sports clubs, because it turns out that today's regulatory framework—note that I say regulatory framework because there is no description in the legal text of how this should occur, but rather it is based on judgments and so on—strikes unequally and unfairly. I can return to a bit more on in what way.

The funny thing was then, I think, that the parties that were not in favor of this proposal for an announcement were the Social Democrats and the Moderates. Fortunately, the other parties in the Chamber voted for it. Now the member does not represent the government parties, and I will therefore not ask what has happened with the announcement. It states in the report that it is being prepared in the Government Offices. And I hope that one of the other representatives from the government base can report on that.

But when a measure is now introduced in connection with this announcement, my question is: How will the Social Democrats take a stand then? I still think it is very strange that the Social Democrats were against this and that they do not think the effects of the implementation of the legislation hit unequally and unfairly and want to rectify it. My question is: How will you take a stand on this when proposals come?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! The first thing I think of is: rub it in, regarding not representing government parties. It still feels a bit strange not to represent the government parties when one has been a member since 2014. But so it may be.

I can begin by stating that this is difficult material. It is, just as the member expressed, not the legislation that regulates this issue, but it is precisely about the interpretation of legislation.

In principle, one can understand the principles that Skatteverket has set up, namely that one should be able to calculate the value of sponsorship. It is then based on a number of more fixed variables, for example spectators and so on. So far, so good.

Then it becomes problematic. I know that myself. I have to be careful here because I have two different roles. But I am the chairman of the Stockholm Ice Hockey Association, which has worked very much for women's ice hockey. It is clear that when the companies very clearly express that there is a need for sponsorship of sports for both boys and girls, men and women, it becomes problematic when the total regulatory framework does not support this direction. On that point, we are in complete agreement.

Then the question of the right way to go is to try to regulate this in detail. And the Social Democratic starting point was that this is an issue that is difficult to regulate in detail, even if my perception is that we see the problem. I still hope that the Swedish Tax Agency and other actors see this problem and see that companies want to sponsor both boys and girls. It is not the same as the sponsorship turning into gifts. That is not what this is about.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I can state that inequality within sports is something that still persists, even if we are not talking about sponsorship. I believe that the figures are still 80 percent for boys' and men's sports and 20 percent for girls' and women's sports. This is something that continues through various structures, including the rules for sponsorship.

Then we must remember that the proposal for the announcement was about an investigation. We have not spoken in detail about how it is to be done. Just as in all other investigations, one must get to the bottom of what it is that is actually wrong. Then one may return to the chamber and say that something needs to be changed in the legislation or that it might be something that the government should comment on in regulatory letters. Or one may also say that this is something that one cannot do anything about in the legislation, but that one must continue to work with opinion and education, i.e., public education. For it is clear that this is a question of values.

But it is not fortunate, but very unfortunate, that these issues often end up in court. Many companies want to sponsor. It is part of their social criteria that they should have a sustainable social sponsorship, and that includes equality and gender equality. Today, it is not so. As the member mentioned, it is more favorable to sponsor men's sports than women's sports. It is more favorable to sponsor arena sports than individual sports such as jogging and orienteering. It is more favorable to sponsor senior sports than children's and youth sports. How is the local construction company to be able to sponsor a youth football team that wants to go on a football camp?

We must get these things right. When this ends up in court, the courts' task is not to make political judgments, which equality and equity are about, but they should only interpret based on the legislation, and that is not working.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! I share Member Vilhelmsson's view that there are problems regarding both how resources are allocated to sports and what the situation looks like.

I am, as I have said, chairman of the Stockholm Ice Hockey Association and know that during the last ten years we have had an increase of 1,300 percent of teams in Stockholm that play women's and girls' ice hockey. There is therefore much positive in the development when it comes to women's and girls' sports and definitely within ice hockey.

Now, that is not what I am going to talk about. But I just want to state that I share Member Vilhelmsson's view on the problem, and we Social Democrats did as well when this was handled. On the other hand, we had a slightly different view on what the way forward looks like.

I will stop at noting that we have seen slightly differently on what the way forward looks like, but I promise to work together with member Vilhelmsson to try to solve the problem. We have the same picture of the problem.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Mathias Tegnér, for an interesting speech on the relationship between growth and taxes!

The Social Democrats have governed for the last eight years. You have set some goals. I personally think that it is good to set goals, because they are measurable.

One of the goals that the Social Democrats had was that we should have Europe's lowest unemployment. We have during these years had exceptionally low interest rates and moreover an economic boom. That should have made that goal, so to speak, just glide into place. Europe's lowest unemployment should have been quite easy to reach. The recent years' economic boom should have wiped out the unemployment.

How does the member explain the fact that we now face an unemployment rate among Europe's highest and have, moreover, entered a recession? Should taxes be raised a little more to boost growth?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Rönn, for the question!

If we start with the prerequisites, it is in any case my opinion that if we speak about the totality of the economic policy, one cannot say that we have governed during the last eight years. We have had Social Democratic-led governments, which I have welcomed precisely because one has not been in the type of chaos that I perceive Sweden has been in during the time after the election. On the other hand, several of the budgets have been bourgeois budgets. During certain periods, we have also tried to cooperate, for example with the Liberals.

During parts of this period, we have also lowered taxes, partly on the initiative of the Liberals. Just as I do not believe that growth simply bounces back automatically because one raises taxes, I also do not believe that it bounces back when one lowers taxes.

I assert that my view likely has good support in the limited research that exists regarding the deep determinants of growth. It depends on what the taxes are used for. That is what determines whether growth is affected positively or negatively by the taxes.

If one attempts an exposé of the world and looks generally, we can state that countries with higher tax levels that are welfare states generally have a lower unemployment rate and a higher employment level. That is part of the explanation for the Swedish unemployment. We have an all too high unemployment. But we also have an employment level that is very high. I think the member also knows that. If we are to truly analyze this question, we need to look at unemployment and employment level together.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Mathias Tegnér, for the answer!

Some parts of that I think are absolutely interesting. For example, it concerns the fact that it is important what one uses the taxes for. Besides that, an important part that was not mentioned is how much tax revenue one has. It does not have to depend only on how high the taxes are, but it can also depend on how many people are working.

Now the government is investing in education. We will go back to a knowledge school. We would like to do very much in that area. We will now take every step to ensure that we get a good education where every child manages in school.

We are investing in vocational training that is matched to the labor market's needs. At the same time, we will have an ambition during the mandate period to lower taxes on, among other things, income. It is low unemployment that counteracts exclusion and the country being torn apart.

Based on the research that Member Mathias Tegnér presents, trust and sticking together is important. The very best way to stick together is for more people to go to work and for everyone who can work to work. Then, of course, we get a larger cake to share. Then one can also lower taxes and further develop and improve growth without the country being torn apart. What does the Member think about that reasoning?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Rönn, for the question!

We share some of the views linked to the member's latest post. I am definitely of the opinion that those who can work should work. I am also of the opinion that if more people go to work, it becomes a way to get a society to hold together. It is a classic social democratic way to try to reduce inequalities.

Therefore, it was pleasing before the pandemic that we had the lowest use of different types of safety nets and social support systems since the 70s. Something happened in Sweden that caused more people to seek out the labor market. It is fundamentally positive.

However, we are completely in disagreement as to whether the government is investing in education. My view is, with all due respect, that a lie does not become true just because it is repeated. I hear how municipalities from all over the country are crying out for increased resources.

Since the government does not want to allocate more resources, the municipalities risk being forced to cut back on central matters such as the school. I believe it was the member's colleague Lotta Edholm who urged her own home municipality, Stockholm, to break the law and sell land in order to be able to invest in the school.

A more reasonable policy would have been for the government to provide funds to the municipalities so that they could invest in schools and welfare. It becomes even stranger when one notes that the government has cut in some of the vocational educations that we know lead to employment.

We are completely in disagreement, Member Rönn, regarding whether the government is investing in school and education. But I hope that we can work together for a policy that leads to real investments in education. I believe that will lead to growth in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating tax on real estate, companies, and capital. The Christian Democrats' economic policy rests on the insight that work and welfare for all can only be achieved by individuals, families, companies, and civil society taking responsibility for our community together.

It is companies that create opportunities for people to get a job. It is one of politics' most important tasks to create conditions for economic growth and thus tax revenues that can be used for the common welfare.

Taxes and fees contribute to competitiveness, and the regulatory burden affecting entrepreneurs shall be reduced. This government is therefore working for a fair tax system with general and clear rules.

We Christian Democrats are pleased that the so-called 3:12 rules are being investigated for simplification. They deal with the owner's distribution and capital gain upon the sale of shares in small companies. They need to take special consideration of the small business owner's situation and facilitate changes of ownership. That is what is being looked into now.

Madam Speaker! The investment savings account, ISK, has grown rapidly to become the most common account type for active stock and fund savings. There are today approximately 2.4 million ISK holders.

The savings form was introduced to facilitate for ordinary private savers to place their money. The account has a standard tax on the entire deposit but no other fees. It increases mobility, and savers can move their holdings smoothly between banks in different ISK.

But there are ambiguities regarding certain share transactions when listed companies are to make issues with both newly issued and existing shares. The Swedish Tax Agency has made a clarification, and they interpret it as that existing shares may not be included in an ISK account.

The Christian Democrats argue that the ambiguity is unfortunate. It affects savers who cannot participate in listings and share issues that they should be entitled to. What we can see is that there is also nothing negative about handling all types of shares in the same way.

I am therefore pleased that we are now making an announcement that new share issues shall also be able to be included in ISK. It is good for all our small savers.

Madam Speaker! The housing situation is in many cases difficult for residents in both larger and smaller municipalities. We Christian Democrats believe that there should be an opportunity for housing companies in markets where the production cost significantly exceeds the market value to make the write-down over a longer period of five to seven years as a new limit to facilitate construction in the future, especially in smaller municipalities.

The Swedish housing market needs reforms so that the availability of housing will increase. Fewer obstacles, faster planning processes, and facilitated private rental are needed. More must be given the opportunity to own their home. Several measures are being taken now by the government, and increased mobility in the housing market is on its way. I am very pleased about that.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats have for a long time, together with the maritime industry, pushed for a so-called blue tax – a tonnage tax that enables shipping companies to pay tax in Sweden at fixed rates based on the size of the ships in the owned fleet. After many years, this tax was introduced in 2017. It provides better conditions for Swedish shipping, which can now compete with the rest of Europe. But the tax needs to be reviewed, and the government is now working on the announcement that we passed in the Riksdag last year.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all reservations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eric Westroth (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the motions that have been submitted during the general motion period regarding tax proposals concerning companies, capital, and real estate.

Sweden has a diversified and dynamic business environment with companies operating in a wide range of different sectors and industries. We are known for having a high proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are an important driver behind the country's economic growth and employment. In fact, 99.4 percent of all companies in Sweden are small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 50 employees.

At the same time, there are also large multinational companies with global reach that have their origin in Sweden. We have a tradition of entrepreneurship and innovation, and many of Sweden's companies are known for having leading positions within technology, environmental friendliness, and sustainability.

Madam Speaker! The companies in Sweden constitute, for large parts, the backbone of the tax base. They support society, and the welfare society that we want to safeguard, economically. If a company's situation makes them feel forced to move abroad, we lose in tax capacity. Therefore, we must have a tax system that makes it attractive for companies and entrepreneurs to invest and develop their businesses in Sweden.

The corona pandemic affected the Swedish business sector heavily. Many support packages were presented, but we need to review how to create good conditions for Swedish companies to get through strained situations. It is about preparing the business sector for the future and strengthening its competitiveness. In that work, we need to turn over several stones and not leave potential measures without discussion.

Madam Speaker! A proposal that could be of interest is a change to today's system for a company's profit equalization over the years. In the current situation, a company that makes a loss can only offset it against potential profits in coming years, even though the future may be uncertain. The system is thus more speculative than if the company had been allowed to offset the loss against real profits from previous years. That system is called carry back, or tax carry back, and is used today in several countries as part of their respective corporate taxation. This applies, among others, to the USA, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

In practice, such a system means that companies that have paid tax on previous years' profits but show a loss during a year could be given the opportunity to receive a refund of the tax they previously paid as early as the year after the loss year. This system enables a much-needed capital injection for many companies that have a temporary slump but have generated profit previously and during more normal years of operation. This should not be confused with today's system with periodization funds and the limitations those have.

Furthermore, the system would be easy to administer and difficult to cheat. Several countries, including Norway, Belgium, and the Czech Republic, have during the pandemic come to realize the potential advantages of carry back and therefore implemented the system to support the domestic business sector. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats believe that the government should be able to examine and investigate the possibility of introducing a similar system in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The sharp population growth of recent years has contributed to a high demand for housing. Despite the fact that new housing has been built at an unprecedented pace, there is still a housing shortage. The recent interest rate hikes and the decline that has occurred for real estate companies guarantee that there will probably be significantly weaker growth in housing construction for a number of years to come.

In order to more effectively utilize an already existing housing stock, the Sverigedemokraterna have for a long time motioned to raise the limit of 40,000 kronor for flat-rate taxation upon the rental of private dwellings. Therefore, it is nevertheless pleasing that the government is now referring a proposal before the budget process to raise the flat-rate deduction to 50,000 kronor.

This will, of course, not solve the housing shortage, but it will thereby increase the incentives to rent out one's private home, either entirely or partially, while at the same time a person in need of housing gets better opportunities to move to, for example, a job or to a university town.

Madam Speaker! Even though times are difficult for many with inflation, interest rate hikes, food prices, fuel prices, and electricity prices, it is important for those who have the opportunity to set aside and save a sum for the future. Historically, we have seen that it is good to have broad share and fund savings in the population. It is good for strengthening the individual's financial situation, and it is also good for the country as a whole with high domestic ownership of companies that primarily operate in Sweden.

That the Swedes should be an owning people is something we have previously pointed out, and therefore it is important to expand and simplify the opportunities for investment and savings. The investment savings account, ISK, which was introduced as a flat-rate taxed form of savings in 2012, has become very successful among small savers.

This applies in particular against the background of its flat-rate taxation model, which eliminated the hassle that many have experienced during tax periods with finding old purchase receipts and keeping track of average acquisition values, historical new issues, and both capital gains and losses. This form of savings was also expected to have reduced the administrative burden not only for the individual but also for the Swedish Tax Agency, which, when auditing the returns, can focus on finding other inaccuracies or attempts to provide incorrect information.

When the savings form turned ten years old, just over a year and a half ago, a measurement showed that a large proportion of Swedes had an ISK and that most were saving for their own pension.

The savings form has often been accused of being too tax-advantaged. And certainly, it has been a relatively low taxation, as the flat-rate taxation is based on the government borrowing rate, which for many years has been low while the stock market has had a positive development.

But before one can evaluate the form of savings in a representative way, it needs to have undergone a full economic cycle. Right now, interest rates are rising while we are probably heading into a recession. This is a combination that makes the form of savings less favorable for the saver, and in fact, the tax on ISK this year is two and a half times higher than it was last year, due to the increased government borrowing rate.

Furthermore, the tax from all ISK accounts flows into the state, even if the stock market were to fall and fewer people chose to sell their securities.

Investment savings accounts (ISK) however have several disadvantages for the saver compared to saving in a regular custody account. Due to legal technicalities, it has not always been possible for the ISK holder to participate when a new company is to be introduced on the stock exchange or when a company is to carry out a so-called new issue, that is, to issue more shares on the market to bring in more capital to the company.

We hope that we can now resolve this when a unanimous committee approves the Sweden Democrats' motion and a referral is directed to the government to review this legislation so that the ISK holder can participate in these events directly with their account, without having to go through a custody account.

Finally, Madam Speaker: Sweden's tax system needs to be competitive in the globalized world we live in. We need to continue to be a country where it is attractive for entrepreneurs to realize their business ideas and thereby create jobs and the tax base needed to finance our welfare.

Sweden is, despite the tax burden having decreased somewhat during the 2000s, still one of the countries in the world where the tax burden is highest. Therefore, it is even more important that we politicians use the citizens' paid tax funds in the responsible manner that they deserve.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the Sverigedemokraternas reservation 17 in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

The Liberals' starting point is that the tax system should be designed so that it favors diligence, ambition and education. Then it is more attractive to work, invest and start companies. Then we get a larger cake to share for the so important common welfare.

In order to be able to build a strong common welfare, we need good tax conditions for individuals and entrepreneurship. That is how we can ensure that there are teachers in the classrooms, doctors and nurses at the health center, and police officers in the square. The more people who work and start companies, the larger the cake for our common welfare becomes.

Today we are debating a number of different proposals, all of which are important and affect all individuals in some way. I will go into some parts: ISK, the 3:12 rules, and the Social Democrats' very poor proposal on readiness tax, which cannot be left without criticism.

Madam Speaker! I want to start with ISK, investeringssparkonto. Just as speakers before me have said, it is a very common and popular tool for saving in. Here, the Riksdag proposes a notification concerning the clarification of the law on investeringssparkonto. It is very good, as previous speakers have explained.

ISK was introduced in 2012 and was a reform so that more people could easily save in financial instruments such as shares and funds. It is important and good. Now, the government will also take another important step during this mandate period within the framework of the Tidö Agreement to facilitate saving for people. We agree that, at the Liberals' initiative, the tax on savings will be lowered by making a base level of 300,000 kronor in an ISK tax-free. I look forward to this, as it will make it easier for many people to build a buffer, save for their first home, or do something else important.

Madam Speaker! I move on to the 3:12 rules, for which there are also several motions. An investigation was commissioned in 2022 to, among other things, simplify the 3:12 rules. This is good and important, as these are currently far too complex. The current government has also presented a supplementary directive. I am very pleased about that, as it became clear that the rules would be looked at in order to improve them and not with the aim of raising taxes. Furthermore, the investigation was tasked with analyzing whether the rules can be simplified to facilitate ownership changes both between relatives and to employees.

Why is this so important then? Well, there are several reasons. The fact that four out of five jobs are created in the small companies with up to 50 employees is an important reason. Many of these companies are covered by the 3:12 rules. Sweden is already today a knowledge nation and a country that has been the base for several companies that have been able to grow large on an international market. It is something we should be very proud of. Therefore, it is also important to be able to have good conditions for the small companies in our country. Everyone is at some point newly started and small. Some remain small but stable and can create secure jobs, and some become large and venture out onto the international market. Everything is good for Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to touch upon the Social Democrats' proposal for a readiness tax, which the Left Party has also supported in the report.

In the 90s, we carried out the so-called tax reform of the century. When the Social Democrats negotiated with us liberals in 1989, we arrived at two supporting principles: 90 percent of Swedes should not pay state tax, and half remaining for wage earners. Half remaining for wage earners – that is worth repeating.

The Social Democrats seem to have completely forgotten these principles. Now they want to raise tax after tax, which will affect more and more income earners and professional groups. This is not worthy of a party that claims to take responsibility for growth and also claims to stand on the side of the wage earners.

It has just been May 1st, and I have seen many of my Social Democratic colleagues with a new, nice May Day pin on their lapel. I have seen several posts on social media about their struggle and May Day marches. I wonder: Struggle against what? Since the major tax reform 33 years ago, the Social Democrats have ruled for 22 years. Of the last 90 years, the Social Democrats have ruled Sweden for 73 years. I want to give my Social Democratic colleagues the tip that next May Day they should start singing verse 4 of the Internationale. Let me quote part of that verse: "We under taxes are sinking."

Madam Speaker! Back to the tax reform. Already in 1995, the Social Democrats departed from the agreed principle of half-in, half-out. Then they introduced the defense tax – a temporary tax, said the Social Democrats. It was temporary for 25 years.

In 2020, the Liberals abolished the wealth tax together with the Social Democrats, and we are very happy about that. It was a harmful tax, which according to calculations was supposed to finance itself. Furthermore, despite the abolished wealth tax, Sweden has one of the world's highest marginal taxes. Today, it is over 1 million wage earners who pay state tax.

Madam Speaker! Now the Social Democrats want to introduce a readiness tax so that we can upgrade the defense. It is a very bad and harmful proposal, and I am relieved that it will not get a majority in the chamber.

I also wonder how one can trust the Social Democrats. As soon as they get the opportunity, they will want to increase the tax burden for a large part of the country's wage earners in many professions. Do not be deceived into believing that it only affects CEOs, senior managers, and Members of Parliament, as they usually talk about in the chamber. No, it will affect ordinary workers in many shortage occupations such as police officers, teachers, doctors, and nurses. It is a harmful policy that hampers Sweden's growth.

The solution is not to place larger tax burdens on those who work today. The solution is to make the cake bigger by having more people enter the workforce and by more people starting and running companies. That is what makes growth increase. That is how we finance all important parts of our welfare - defense, school, healthcare, elderly care, and much more. No special taxes for special parts of the welfare, thanks!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! I almost wanted to say thank you, Member Rönn, for the question.

The member of parliament stated in her speech that she did not understand how we can demonstrate against injustices on May 1st when we have governed for as long as we have. Furthermore, the member of parliament stated that one should not trust S. Given that the Liberals completely abandoned what they promised and signed during the last term, those types of statements become somewhat remarkable. They become even more remarkable when leading liberals are now fleeing the party – I am thinking primarily of Cecilia Malmström – precisely because the Liberals have actually abandoned some of their liberal soul.

Is there anything one should take away from this debate and the political situation in Sweden, and that is probably: Do not trust the Liberals if you want liberal politics! They have, in fact, completely abandoned their liberal soul and are now part of the right-wing populist movement in Sweden. Your Europe Party has also noted this. I wonder how long you will be able to remain there, since you pursue a right-wing populist policy.

The reason why Social Democrats can demonstrate on May 1st is that we demonstrate against injustices. We are, as said, a freedom-loving party, and we do not think that a country like Sweden should be governed solely by politics. Sweden is part of an open, globalized economy, and not everything that happens in Sweden is influenced by politics. Therefore, we will always be in opposition to injustices.

I would like the member to explain: How can one, as a liberal, not be in opposition to, for example, 70-80 people owning half of the resources here on earth?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! A question came in during the last ten seconds, after a rant about what has happened lately. Can the Liberals be trusted?

We have wanted nuclear power. And we did not join the energy agreement. There we have stood firm. Have the Social Democrats done that? No, I do not think so.

We started talking about Nato 20 years ago. When did the Social Democrats change their minds? They did so in a few months last year.

The war tax was also such a thing. We saw to it that it was abolished.

The Liberals stand for education, equality and freedom. That is what we have always done during the over hundred years we have sat in the Riksdag. That is what we will continue to do for the next hundred years as well.

We are happy to cooperate with several parties to push through good reforms that are important for Sweden. What is important for us is the result. And we know very well where we have our liberal values.

One can absolutely demonstrate against injustices. But I mean that it is an injustice that it was possible to abandon the century's tax reform in five years when you were in agreement with us Liberals on half remaining for wage earners and that no more than 10 percent of Sweden's population would pay wealth tax. It is an injustice that we take so much tax from the people when they work.

It is much better politics to actually stand up for what we agreed on - half remains. I wonder if Member of Parliament Mathias Tegnér could imagine that. I truly agree with Mathias Tegnér that we need a major tax reform, which he said in his speech. I would very much like to have that discussion. But then it is important to agree on principles that can last for more than five years.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

It was wonderful that we returned to the tax policy. If one looks at the years that have passed since the tax reform, one sees that there are a number of things that have been adjusted. It is true that the Social Democrats in some respects have changed that tax reform, for example, what was raised earlier about removing inheritance and gift tax, which the Liberals otherwise usually highlight as something positive.

Basically, I believe that a lot has happened over the last 30 years. Therefore, it would be good to have a broad tax reform. I believe that many in Sweden see that. We Social Democrats would definitely be ready to cooperate on such a reform.

That type of broad agreement is a compromise. I believe Member Rönn is aware of that. But if one is to be able to move forward in such a large and broad tax reform, I believe one also needs to look out across the world to see what problems exist there today. Then one must be able to handle that in some respects, certainly, lower taxes were needed. But one must also be able to handle that in other respects the world has become extremely much more unfair than it was 30 years ago. Then one needs to dare to address that as well.

When the member says that the Liberals have always stood for equality and freedom, I still feel that there is a need to look at the policy that is currently being pursued by the government that the Liberals are part of. That policy is, in fact, not equal and does not lead to freedom either.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I think and believe, at the core, that the Social Democrats have good intentions. They talk a lot about freedom, solidarity, and equality, at least. But they forget that one should not hold back the individual in that. It is precisely there that there is a big difference between us.

We see the individual, not a large mass. The individual shall be able to choose for themselves. The individual shall be able to decide whether one wants to start a company or be an employee, how one wants to support oneself.

No one can doubt that the Liberals stand up for the little person who cannot make their voice heard. We have gone to the forefront for the LGBTQ movement. We have gone to the forefront for LSS legislation and many freedom reforms for those who cannot make their voices heard.

It is interesting that MP Mathias Tegnér brought up growth and what is happening around the world. Euron is, in fact, another matter where you can rely on the Liberals. We have been in favor of it for a very long time.

Today, the Fiscal Policy Council's report on the economy during 2022 was released. The interesting thing was that it showed that net exports decreased last year, despite a weak krona. That means we are becoming poorer and poorer in the world. It is another thing that I believe we must start discussing now. There, I also welcome the Social Democrats and member Mathias Tegnér.

How do we ensure that Sweden, which is a small knowledge nation with a great need for exports, can stand strong in a changing world, precisely so that we can have the freedom and our fantastic welfare and be able to develop it? I hope that we will be able to have more discussions on how we do that in a good way together.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: That must happen another time. The exchange of remarks is now concluded.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! The inequalities in Sweden have increased in recent years, as taxes have been abolished and wages have been raised without the lowest wages and the social systems keeping pace. Greater redistribution is needed. Taxation according to ability to pay and welfare based on need is the core of redistribution.

Since the welfare state is financed by public funds, tax policy becomes one of the more ideologically significant policy areas, perhaps the most significant.

Vänsterpartiet wants to initiate work on a comprehensive tax reform that shall create a uniform, fair, and legitimate tax system that can contribute to a long-term financing of the welfare. Our general starting point is that the state shall not use lower tax rates and different tax deductions as support for certain companies or industries or to influence consumption patterns and working hours.

Taxes shall finance common commitments and level out income inequalities. The most prioritized areas to address are the eroded capital taxation and the extremely uneven wealth distribution we have in Sweden. If we are to have a society that holds together, we cannot maintain the class society and the large differences that exist in people's living conditions.

There is no reason to concentrate the money among a few and let others fall behind. It is those who already had difficulty making ends meet before the crisis who are now hit hardest. Decades of tax cuts and subsidies for the rich have resulted in growing gaps, and we now have an economic system that needs to be repaired, so that the majority can have it better.

Now that we are in the biggest economic crisis since the 90s, those who have benefited from previous tax policies must participate in financing necessary investments in welfare and in upgrading society. Powerful public investments are needed. Here, the tax system is crucial for us to be able to put a stop to economic inequality and begin redistributing more to the common good.

In Sweden, the wealth of the richest percent has doubled since the 80s. Capital incomes are concentrated among the very richest. They are also one of the primary explanations for the increased income inequalities we have seen in recent years. Furthermore, the richest often have the opportunity to convert labor income into low-taxed capital income. They simply make money on money that instead would have been redistributed to, for example, renovate healthcare and the general welfare.

It is possible to do something about this by specifically taxing the very wealthy to make it better for the majority. Taxes on capital income and wealth do not only mean more just and well-functioning societies but also a shift in power away from a few capital owners.

We in Vänsterpartiet have presented several proposals in our budget motion, and in the upcoming vote, we will support reservation 7 regarding a review of the taxation of capital income and large economic assets.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has on repeated occasions submitted proposals to the Riksdag to investigate whether the provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding permanent establishment are appropriately designed to cover foreign companies that operate extensively in Sweden.

According to the trade union Byggnads, a stricter interpretation of the concept of permanent establishment should be introduced. A company that is continuously, regularly, or periodically active in Sweden during a twelve-month period shall always be considered established in Sweden. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that it should be investigated whether the provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding permanent establishment are purposefully designed to include foreign companies that operate to a large extent in Sweden. Byggnads came as late as last year with a report where they had examined several construction companies and identified several cases of fraud at large workplaces, also linked to the concept of permanent establishment in some cases.

Another proposal from Vänsterpartiet is that it should be possible to make deductions for future maintenance even for rental apartments. Today, such a deduction is made via the rent and is taxed as profit. Smallhouse owners and housing cooperatives, on the other hand, have the possibility to balance the cost by making deductions for future maintenance without it having any tax consequences. This hinders the possibilities for maintenance in rental properties and makes it unprofitable for property owners to make deductions. Instead, the costs for wear and tear are shifted onto future tenants.

To rectify this tax injustice, compared to owned homes, Vänsterpartiet proposes that tax-free maintenance deductions shall be introduced also for rental properties. This will reduce the number of renovation bills. People must be able to afford to stay even after an apartment has been renovated.

Madam Speaker! I want to clarify that I, of course, support all the Left Party's motions and reservations, but here I move for approval of reservation 7 on capital income and reservation 11 on tax-free maintenance deductions for rental housing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! This motion report deals with many important issues for both companies and civil society. You know, the companies – those that create four out of five jobs in our country. Some of those issues I have touched upon in the replies, but there are a few more I want to point out here.

There is a housing shortage in Sweden. The report addresses issues that the Housing Taxation Committee has looked into, such as reliefs for renting out one's own home. Let us note that the committee submitted its report as early as 2014. I therefore hope that the government can speed up that work a bit.

What is not mentioned is the Center Party's proposal to abolish the property fee for those who take on the task of renovating houses that stand abandoned all over Sweden, which unfortunately is quite common both in the countryside and in the city. Abandoned buildings do not contribute to anything good in our social environment. This could be a step in countering this, if one thinks a bit outside the box. We want to send this to the Housing Taxation Committee, and therefore I want to move for approval of reservation 12 in the report.

Madam Speaker! Let me say a few words about forests and forestry, which is also addressed in the committee report. Forestry is, according to the Center Party, one of the most important industries for the transition to a fossil-free society. At the same time, we know that it is an industry that has enormous importance for Sweden's economy and export net.

In the Swedish tax legislation, there is today something called a forest account. This means that money from a logging operation carried out once during the forest's rotation period - which is 80 years or more - can be disposed of over time and not be withdrawn and taxed exactly at the time of logging. These are wise economic conditions for Sweden's forest owners and are completely decisive for their economy.

In the forest proposal that we decided on during the previous parliamentary term and which was a measure within the January agreement, it was established that similar conditions should also apply to other infringement compensation, for example for nature conservation or expropriation for roads or power lines.

Today, a nature conservation agreement applies for 50 years. It is unreasonable that it should be a one-time compensation for that, which is taxed at one and the same time. But that is exactly how it is today. Those funds should also be able to be deposited into something similar to a forest account. I look forward to the Swedish Tax Agency reporting on its assignment regarding this in August this year.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I also want to say that the investigation into simplifying the 3:12 rules is welcome, as is the additional assignment from the government to facilitate generational transition. It is very important and welcome for the business sector in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is very pleasant to be back in the speaker's chair in the chamber and in tax matters. It was a few years since last.

The design of the tax system has an immense significance for development in society in every possible way, for example for companies, citizens, welfare, the environment and the distribution of resources. Capital income is today very unevenly distributed, and it is probably some of what is driving the increased differences and gaps in Sweden. Reforms would be needed.

Madam Speaker! Several have spoken about the investment savings account, a form of taxation that has existed for a number of years. According to the Tidö Agreement, there is an ambition from the government to lower that tax. We have not seen it yet. We shall have to see if it happens. Miljöpartiet had in its budget a proposal that it should be tax-free for the first 50,000 kronor and that instead a larger taxation should be made of capital over 1 million. If such a shift were made, it could be done in a cost-neutral way for the state. I think the government should take that to heart.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen the funding of art and culture. That area was discussed for a long time before this debate, and it is very important for us in Miljöpartiet. Public funding is what is most often discussed politically - but it is also important to safeguard private funding. Therefore, I want to move for approval of reservation 14, even though the other reservations from Miljöpartiet are naturally also very good. We will see if they can get the Chamber's support in the voting on Wednesday.

Business, capital and property

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 May.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)